Final Notice – Japan NCP

Final Notice: Formal Record of Non-Performance by the Japan NCP and International Disclosure

(Submitted: October 15, 2025, 17:00 JST)

From: Shunsuke Kimura shukku9998@gmail.com

To: Japan NCP jpn-ncp@mofa.go.jp

Subject: Final Notice – Official Record of Procedural Non-Performance and International Sharing

Dear Japan NCP,

I would first like to express my respect for your continuous efforts in promoting and implementing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

I submitted my complaint in reliance upon that mission and in trust that your office would follow the established procedure in good faith.

On September 15, 2025, I formally submitted a “Specific Instance” to your office.

In accordance with OECD Procedural Guidance, I requested that the Japan NCP provide a notification regarding acceptance or rejection of the case, and its intended course of action, by October 15, 2025 (17:00 JST).

However, as of today’s date, no formal decision of either acceptance or rejection has been issued by your office. This constitutes an explicit institutional non-performance under the Procedural Guidance.

Applicable Provisions and Breaches

Procedural Guidance I.C.2

→ Obligation to notify acceptance or rejection within a reasonable period.

→ No decision was issued by October 15; violation established.

Procedural Guidance II.C.3

→ Obligation to provide specific and reasonable grounds when rejecting a submission.

→ No explicit statement or reason was provided; case remains in an ambiguous “pending” state.

Procedural Guidance II.C.4

→ Cases of procedural violation may be referred to the OECD Investment Committee.

→ This case fully applies.

Council Recommendation (2021) para. 16

→ States must ensure mechanisms for investigation and remedy available to whistleblowers.

→ No investigative or procedural actions were taken.

Council Recommendation (2021) para. 20

→ States must endeavor to initiate corrective and remedial processes.

→ No attempt at mediation or dialogue was made.

The “formal acknowledgment email” previously sent by your office does not constitute a procedural response as required by the OECD Guidance.

Institutional Findings

Factually: No “policy decision” was communicated to the submitter by the specified deadline (October 15).

Structurally: Your office has failed to fulfill its institutional role as the entry point for mediation.

Institutionally: A state-level failure to perform obligations under the OECD framework is confirmed.

Conflict with International Norms

UNCAC Article 33 – State obligation to protect whistleblowers.

UNGP Principles 29 and 31 – Duty to ensure predictable, fair, and trustworthy grievance mechanisms.

This is not a mere delay but constitutes a systemic refusal by a state institution.

Future Actions

1. Formally record this case as non-performance by the Japan NCP.
2. Commence international review through informational sharing with the OECD Secretariat and other NCPs (U.S., Europe, etc.).
3. Where necessary, report to ESG rating agencies and investor networks to promote corrective measures and restore confidence in the OECD governance framework.

I extend my appreciation for the limited formal responses your office has provided to date. However, this matter now surpasses domestic jurisdiction, and international oversight and verification within the OECD framework have become unavoidable.

This record will be publicly and institutionally disclosed as a reference for inter-NCP coordination and credibility assessment among OECD member states.

This notification constitutes an official procedural record under the OECD Procedural Guidance and may be submitted to other NCPs and the OECD Secretariat as necessary.

Respectfully,

Shunsuke Kimura

Whistleblower / Former Employee of Maeda Corporation

(a 100% subsidiary of Infroneer Holdings Corporation)

Formal Complainant under OECD Procedures

The original Japanese evidence document (PDF) is attached below for reference.